high speed rail neg 7wj

7/29/2019 High Speed Rail Neg 7WJ

1/44

UMICH 12 CFJP 7-wk Juniors Lab

HSR Neg

***Neg***


2/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

***AT Economy***


3/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

No Economic Stimulus

No short-term stimulus effectHSR will take decades to completeStegemeier 10 Retired Chairman and CEO of Unocal (Richard, Richard Stegemeier: High-speed rail economics bleak, Feb 15,http://www.ocregister.com/articles/speed-234453-high-rail.html)

High-speed railis a wonderful concept because it uses electricity andcould reduce our dependence on fossil fuels sometime in the distant future. Bit's also far more expensive than commercial airlines and will require a new source of electricity from solar, wind or nuclear power. The president assuresthere will be no pork in the $3.8 trillion federal budget for 2011. That may be true if we ignore the proposed $2.3 billion high-speed-rail grant for California. Anundetermined amount of that money would be spent as a down payment on a $42.6 billion proposal to connect Anaheim with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's SanFrancisco and Los Angeles with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Las Vegas. That's an "oink-oink" if I ever heard one. I can understand the Las Vegas high-speed

link to accommodate the thousands of Californians who want to flee to Nevada to escape California's high taxes. High-speed rail as part of ashort-term economic stimulus package is nonsense if it takes a decade or two to build. Theenvironmental impact statement itself will take years. Acquiring 680 miles of right-of-way will becontested in thousands of eminent domain lawsuits and will take at least a decade to complete. If high-speed rail serves intermediate cities then it will increase travel time, create noise and interrupt traffic flow at thousands of intersections. If it bypasses smaller cities tgain the advantage of speed, then it serves only the end terminals and disadvantages everyone in-between.

No major economic boomjob estimates assume freight rail and dont account for increased taxpayesubsidiesStaley 9 Director of Urban Growth and Land Use Policy for Reason Foundation, (Sam, Why High-Speed Rail Fails as a Jobs Program, August 18,http://reason.com/archives/2009/08/18/why-high-speed-rail-fails-as-a)

Of course, rail proponents argue that spending money now on high-speed rail is a long-terminvestmentthat will pay off in higher economic productivity over the long-haul. But these job creation and income estimates they use are based onspending for freight rail, not passenger rail. Freight rail in America is a crucial part of our transportation infrastructure, accounting for 43 percent of theshipment of goods and services from one city to the other. Thus, investments in freight rail have a direct impact on the bottom line for American businesses, increasin

the speed and reliability of goods shipment and improving productivity.Passenger rail in the U.S. is a different story. Passengerrail currently carries a very small portion of city-to-city travelthe market targeted by high-speed railand it's likely toremain modest well into the future. In 2008, Amtrak carried 28.7 million passengers. By comparison, there were 687 million airline passengers in 2008, in part becau

air service provides frequent high-speed travel to geographically distant cities. Then there's our well-developed highway network

that makes automobiles very competitive with rail for distances under 200 miles. In most cases, onctravel and wait times to train stations are factored in, travelers will spend as much time in route onthe train as they will in a car. Consider a trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco, or Chicago to St. Louis, for a typical high-speed train traveler. Youlikely have to drive to the train station and pay to park. Once arriving in downtown St. Louis or San Francisco, you will likely have to take a taxi or rent a car to get toyour hotel or meeting place (which is likely to be outside the central business district). The reliable, diverse, and nimble transit system that many advocates envision

surrounding high-speed rail stations simply doesn't exist in most cities today, limiting the appeal of trains. To compensate for thesedisadvantages, taxpayerswill have to steeply subsidize train ticket prices for the business travelersand tourists that are most likely to use them. Ultimately, high-speed rail's impacts on Americantravel patterns and employment productivity are going to be negligible, and the actual job creationpotential for high speed rail is much more modest than proponents admit. Take, for example, the Ohio Hub corridolinking Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo to regional destinations such as Chicago and Toronto. Ohio is one of the nation's largest state economies,employing 5.3 million people. As an old-line manufacturing state, Ohio has lost 300,000 jobs just in the past year. Needless to say, Ohioans will be attracted to theoptimistic rhetoric of rail's job creation potential. Moreover, preliminary estimates by independent consultants suggest the Ohio Hub may actually cover its annual

operating costs (although supporters are counting on the federal government covering 80 percent of capital costs of the $3.7 billion project). Yet, even with thesefederal subsidies the consultant reports suggest that a $2.3 billion investment in building the rail corridor would generate only 54,540 jobs over the projected nine-yconstruction phase. That works out to 2,635 jobs per year at a cost of $42,170 per job. Further analysis found 16,700 permanent jobs would be created by the systemonce the system was up and running, assuming optimistically that ridership reaches forecasted levels and fares are set to cover its operating costs. While that mightseem like a lot of jobs, the effort will do little to stem the economic tide turning against Ohio and other states facing the headwinds of global competition and a rising

services-based economy. For transportation investments to have a meaningful economic impact, they will neeto cost-effectively improve America's ability to move goods, services, and people from one place toanother. High-speed rail doesn't do that. It is an extremely costly way to achieve limited portions ofthese goals, and it inevitably fails as a broad-based solution to the country's transportationchallenges.


4/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

No Reduction in Road Congestion

HSR does not have a perceptible impact on road traffic- Japan provesOToole 9(senior fellow at the Cato Institute High-speed rail is expensive and inefficienthttp://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=1256 7/30/09) CANOVA

Moderate-speed trains whose average speeds are 60 to 75 mph are not going to relieve highway congestion. Even California predicts that its true high-speed trawill take only 3.8 percent of traffic off of parallel roads. Since traffic grows that much every two years, high-speed rail is an extremely costly and ineffective way

treating congestion. High-speed trains in Europe and Japan may be attractive to tourists, but neither have stoppedthe growth in auto driving. Residents of Japan travel as much on domestic airlines and almost as much by bus as by high-speed rail, andthey travel by car 10 times as many miles per year as by high-speed rail. "Not a single high-speed track built todate has had any perceptible impact on the road traffic carried by parallel motorways," says Ari Vatanen, a member othe European Parliament. The average residents of Japan and France ride high-speed rail less than 400 miles a year.

HSR would only divert a small number of passengers at best nonpartisan study provesNCPA 10(the National Center for Policy Analysis is a conservative think tank. Calif. Rail Project Is High-Speed Porkhttp://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20001 Nov 4 2010) CANOVA

High-speed trains connecting major cities are a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a

respectable social cause. In reality, they would further burden already overburdened governments and drain dollars from worthier programs, saysRobert Samuelson. Let's suppose that the Obama administration gets its wish to build high-speed rail systems in 13 urban corridors. The administration hasalready committed $10.5 billion, and that's just a token down payment. California wants about $19 billion for an 800-mile track from Anaheim to San Francisco.Constructing all 13 corridors could easily approach $200 billion. Most (or all) of that would have to come from government at some level. What would we get forthis huge investment? Not much. Here's what we wouldn't get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air travel, oil

consumption or imports, says Samuelson. High-speed intercity trains (not commuter lines) travel at up to 250 miles perhour and are most competitive with planes and cars over distances of fewer than 500 miles. In a report onhigh-speed rail, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 miles orfewer with the most daily air traffic in 2007. Los Angeles to San Francisco led the list with 13,838passengers; altogether, daily air passengers in these 12 corridors totaled 52,934. If all of them switched totrains, the total number of daily airline passengers (about 2 million) would drop only 2.5 percent, and anyfuel savings would be less than that. High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do little

else. With governments everywhere pressed for funds, how can anyone justify a program whose main effect will simply be to make matters worse?


5/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

***AT Oil***


6/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

Imports Falling NowUS oil imports falling now DOE expects moderating trend to continueDogget 11, energy correspondent for Reuters, (Tom, U.S. relies less on oil imports to meet fuel demand: government, Reuters, May 25, 2011,http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/us-usa-oil-imports-idUSTRE74O78R20110525)//AGWASHINGTON (Reuters/Tom Doggett) - U.S. dependence on imported oil fell below 50 percent in 2010 for the first

time in more than a decade, thanks in parttotheweakeconomyand more fuel efficient vehicles, the Energy Department said Wednesday. The department's Energy Information Administration said it expected the moderating trendin U.S. oil-import dependencyto continue through the next decade due to improvements in energy efficiency and even higher fuel economy standards. The new data could undercut efforts by Republican lawmakers to expandoffshore oil drilling to reduce oil imports, and support the position of the Obama administration and environmental groups that higher mileage requirements for

cars and trucks would help cut dependence on foreign oil. Imports of crude and petroleum products accounted for 49.3percent of U.S. oil demand last year,down from the recent high of 60.3 percent in 2005. It also marked the first timesince 1997 that America's foreign oil addiction fell under the 50 percent threshold. "This decline partly reflects the downturn in the underlying economy after thfinancial crisis of 2008," the EIA said in its weekly review of the oil market. Increased domestic production of ethanol and other biofuels that are blended with

gasoline and consumer purchases of more fuel efficient vehicles also slashed the need for oil imports, according to the EIA. Crude oil production,especially in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico, increased by 334,000 barrels per day (bpd) between 2005 and 2010, which also cut intoforeign oil purchases. U.S. demand for gasoline, jet fuel, heating oil and other petroleum products thawere processed from crude oil droppedby 1.7 million bpd to 19.1 million bpd in 2010 from 20.8 million bpd in 2005. At the same time, U.S.exports of petroleum products more than doubled to a record 2.3 million bpd last year from 1.1 million bpd in 2005. "Nowhere have U.S. product exportsincreased more than in the Americas, including Mexico, Canada, Central and South America and the Caribbean, thanks to economic and population growth and

inadequate refining capacity in those countries," the EIA said. As a result, U.S. net imports of refined petroleum products fell lastyear to their lowest level since 1973, when the government began collecting such data.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/us-usa-oil-imports-idUSTRE74O78R20110525http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/us-usa-oil-imports-idUSTRE74O78R20110525http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/us-usa-oil-imports-idUSTRE74O78R20110525


7/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

HSR Still Uses Oil

No significant reduction in oil electric trains still rely on fossil fuelTutton 11(Mark is a staff writer for CNN.com, a credible news source. How green is high-speed rail? http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/world/how-green-is-hsr/index.html Nov 19, 2011)

The UK is currently mulling over a high speed rail link between London and Birmingham, a city about 160 kilometers north-west othe capital. But according to official estimates, is unlikely to lead to significant carbon dioxide cuts -- and may evenincrease climate-changing emissions. So what's stopping high speed rail being a major part of a greener transport future in Britain? Firstthere's the electricity to power the trains. Over two thirds of the world's electricity comes from fossil fuelso until (or unless) power stations are weaned off fossil fuels, electric trains will still have a significant climatimpact-- although rail travel is still better than flying or driving.


8/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

Cant Reduce Cars

High speed rail cant get cars off the road

OToole, 09 - American public policy analyst; senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government PlanningHarms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future (Randal, The High Cost of High-Speed Rail, America Dream Coalition - Center for Econom

Freedom Texas Public Policy Foundation, 8/09,http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)//AYThe experiences of cities that have adopted these policies reveal two things. First, such policies do notsignificantly reduce driving. Second, the policies impose very high costs on the cities and urban areas thaadopt them.Within the range of densities found in American urban areas, density alone has trivialeffects on the amount of driving people do. Statistically, the correlation between changes in urbandensities and changes in per-capita driving is very low, and to the extent there is a correlation, adoubling of urban densities reduces per-capita driving by just 3.4 percent. Nor do so-called transit-oriented developmentshigh-density, mixed-use developments near transit stationssignificantlyreduce driving. To the extent that people living in these developments drive less than others, it isbecause those people want to drive less so they decided to live near a transit line. After that markethas been saturated, however, people living in such developments tend to drive as much as anyoneelse. Surveys have found that people living in Portland-area transit-oriented developments do notuse transit significantly more than people in other Portland neighborhoods. Similar results havebeen found with transit-oriented developments in other cities. The failure of these policies to havemuch of an effect on driving might not be important were it not for the fact that the policies impose hugecosts on urban residents. Numerous surveys show that the vast majority of Americans say they want to livein a single-family home with a yard. Yet livability policies deliberately make this housing unaffordable tolow- and even middle-income families. Indeed, the housing bubble that led to the recent economic crisis wa

almost exclusively in states and urban areas that use smart growth or some other form of growth-management planning. Not coincidentally, a similar property bubble led to Japans economic crisis in 1990.The administrations livability policies are likely to make Americas next housing bubble even worse thanthe recent one.
http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AYhttp://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AYhttp://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AYhttp://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AY


9/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

***AT Warming***


10/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

1

Energy Efficiency Turn

Turn: HSR will be less energy-efficient and more polluting than drivingOToole 9(senior fellow at the Cato Institute High-speed rail is expensive and inefficienthttp://www.illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=1256 7/30/09) CANOVA

Nor is high-speed rail good for the environment. The Department of Energy says that, in intercity travel, automobiles are as energy-efficient as Amtrak, and thatboosting Amtrak trains to higher speeds will make them less energy-efficient and morepolluting than driving. Steven Polzin of the University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research points out thatautos andbuses have relatively short life cycles, so they can readily adapt to the need to save energy or reducepollution. Rail systems "may be far more difficult or expensive to upgrade to newer, more efficienttechnologies," Polzin adds. If automakers meet Obama's fuel-efficiency standards, autos will be more than 30 percent more efficienin 2025 than they are today, so high-speed rail actually will be wasting energy. People who want to save energy shouldencourage the state to relieve the traffic congestion that wastes nearly 3 billion gallons of fuel each year. Traffic signal coordination and other low-cost techniqucan do more to relieve congestion and save energy than high-speed rail, and at a far lower cost. An expensive rail system used by a small portion of Illinoisans isnot change we can believe in. Illinois should use its share of rail stimulus funds for safety improvements such as grade crossings, not for new trains that willobligate taxpayers to pay billions of dollars in additional subsidies.

HSR wont reduce enough energy to solve their impactOToole, 09 - American public policy analyst; senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government PlanningHarms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future (Randal, The High Cost of High-Speed Rail, America Dream Coalition - Center for Econom

Freedom Texas Public Policy Foundation, 8/09,http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)//AYIt is unlikely that moderate-speed train operations will save any energy at all. Such trains will mostlbe Diesel-powered, and increasing speeds from 79 to 110 mph will significantly increase the energyconsumption and greenhouse gas emissions of those trains. Saving energy requires that trainsaccelerate slowly and coast into stations rather than brake heavily, but such practices reduce thetime savings offered by higher top speeds. True high-speed trains save energy by using lighterequipment, but the energy cost of higher speeds party offsets the savings from hauling less weight.

Any remaining operational savings are not likely to be sufficient to recover the huge amounts of

energy consumed and greenhouse gases released during construction of new rail lines. Afterstudying high-speed rail proposals in Britain, Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster Universityconcluded that the construction costs dwarf any savings in operations unless the rail lines are usedto their full capacity. With a round-the-clock average of just one train an hour in each direction, and nomore than two trains a hour during the busiest times of day, even Amtraks New York-to-Washingtoncorridor is far from full capacity. Electrically powered high-speed trains produce less greenhouse gaseonly if that electricity is generated from renewable power sources. Most electricity in the U.S. comesfrom fossil fuels, with the result that urban rail transit systems in such cities as Baltimore, Denver,Cleveland, Miami, and Washington generate as much or more greenhouse gases, per passenger mileas driving an SUV, much less an ordinary car. It is far more cost-effective to save energy by encouragingpeople to drive more fuel-efficient cars than to build and operate high-speed rail. Moreover, in places that d

generate electricity from renewable sources, it would be more cost-effective to use that electricity to powerelectric or plug-in hybrid cars than high-speed rail.


11/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

1

Construction Turn

HSRs reduction in CO2 is small and may take decades to compensate for the emissions caused by

construction

Albalate 12, assistant professor of economics at the University of Barcelona, (Daniel, High-Speed Rail: Lessons for Policy Makers from ExperiencAbroad, Public Administration Review, April 2009, Political Science Complete)//AGClearly, the overall impact of HSTs on energy consumption is heavily dependent on the source of its traffic whether it is newly generated or attracted fro

previously existing modes (and, in the case of road transportation, whether it replaces cars or buses). However, HSR is not a particularly useftool for fighting carbon dioxide emissions, as it is less environmentally efficient than conventionamodern trains. Further, building a new and separate HST line involves significant carbon dioxidemissions that environmental HST analyses do not take into account(together with the environmental impact caused land take, noise, and visual disruption). In fact, Kageson concludes, after presenting evidence comparing the environmental impact of different transpmodes, that the reduction of carbon dioxide through HSR buildingis small and it may take decades forto compensate for the emissions caused by construction . . . Indeed, it will take too long fortraffi c toff set the emissions caused by building the line. Under these circumstances it may be better to upgrade an existing lineaccommodate for somewhat higher speeds as this would minimize emissions from construction and cut emissions from train traffi c compared to HSR (2009, 2

Turn: Building HSR will harm air quality, aquatic life, and endangered speciesMcClatchy 12(High-Speed Rail Faces Environmental Objections, http://www.governing.com/mct-californias-high-speed-rail-faces-environmental-objections.html, June 11) CANOVA

The California bullet train is promoted as an important environmental investment for the future, but over the next decade the heavyconstruction projectwould potentially harm air quality, aquatic life and endangered species across thestate's Central Valley. Eleven endangered species, including the San Joaquin kit fox, would be affected, according to federalbiologists. Massive emissions from diesel-powered heavy equipment could foul the already filthy air. Dozens orivers, canals and wetlands fed from the rugged peaks of the Sierra Nevada would be crossed, creating otheknotty issues.


12/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

1

Inferior to Autos/Airliners

HSTs empirically use as much or more energy than autos and conventional trainsAlbalate 12, assistant professor of economics at the University of B arcelona, (Daniel, High-Speed Rail: Lessons for Policy Makers from ExperiencAbroad, Public Administration Review, April 2009, Political Science Complete)//AG

There has yet to be a detailed, systematic evaluation of the impact of an expanding HST network on threduction in carbon dioxide emissions at either the aggregate or country level. However, information available on the environmental effects of HSTs, particularly with regard to their energy consumptionAccording to estimates conducted by Van Essen et al. (2003), energy consumed (in megajoules per seat-kilometer) by air transport240 percent higher than that attributable to HSTs. However, the energy consumed by HSTs is 12.8 percent higher than petrol-driven car when traveling on the motorway, 55.9 percent higher than a diesel-driven car othe motorway, and 140.9 percent higher than an intercity train . Similarly, a recent paper by Andersoand Lukaszewicz (2009) finds a 32 percent difference between conventional and HSR using kilowatt hourper seat-kilometer as a measure. Other estimates (Van Wee, Van den Brink, and Nijland 2003) conclude that while energy use and emissions fHSTs are much higher than for conventional trains, they are relatively similar to those for cars and buses . In the most favorable analysfor HSTs, conducted by Garca lvarez (2007) for Spain, HSTs and conventional trains were reported aproducing similar emissions on two of the lines analyzed, while the conventional train was mucmore efficient on the remaining line.

HSR will not be superior to cars or aviation in 20 yearsLevinson 2010(David, Fellow at the Institute of Transportation Studies, Economic Development Impacts of High-Speed Rail,http://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/EconomicDevelopmentImpactsOfHSR.pdf, LCS)That said, rememberthatreal HSR (not the short term improvements to get to 90 or 110 MPH, which may or may not be a good thing, but are certainly not HSis a long term deployment, so it needs to be compared with cars 10 or 20 or 30 years hence, and theair transportation system over the same period. Cars are getting better from both an environmentaperspective and from the perspective of automation technologies.The DARPA Urban Challenge vehicles need tbe bested to justify HSR. Cars driven by computers, which while sounding far off is technologically quite near, should be able to attain relatively high speed

(though certainly not HSR speeds in mixed traffic). Further they may move less material per passenger than HSR (trains are heavy), and so maynet lessenvironmental impact if electrically powered. Aviation is improving as well, both in terms of itsenvironmental impacts and its efficiency. Socially-constructed problems like aviation security or congestion can bsolved for far less money than is required for any one high-speed rail line.

HSR claims to reduce greenhouse gases are based on highly optimistic assumptions for rail and

pessimistic assumptions for autos and airlinesOToole 09- the director of the Independence Institute's Center for the American Dream (Randal, The High cost of high -speed rail, Texas PubliPolicy Foundation, August 2009http://americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf, CJD)Such analyses are rarely objective, however. The California High-Speed Rail Authority claims that high-speed rail would save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.75But these claims are based on

highly optimistic assumptions for rail and pessimistic assumptionsfor autos and airlines: The LosAngeles-to-San Francisco line would carry more than more than three times as many passengers in2025 as Amtrak now carries in the Boston-to-Washington corridor, even though that corridor servesmore people than the California corridor is expected to have in 2025;76 Neither automobiles nor airplanes will becomemore energy efficient or cleaner than they are today;77The authority never mentions the energy and pollution cost ofreplacing trains and reconstructing track and electrical facilities every 30 years; The authoritycalculates the energy cost of building high-speed rail, but not the greenhouse gas emissions. Theseassumptions areall examples of what Danish planning professor Bent Flyvbjerg calls optimism bias.78 Such bias, says Flyvbjerg,typically afflicts proponents of megaprojects, which is why large public worksprojects almostinevitably cost
http://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/EconomicDevelopmentImpactsOfHSR.pdfhttp://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/EconomicDevelopmentImpactsOfHSR.pdfhttp://americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdfhttp://americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdfhttp://americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdfhttp://americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdfhttp://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/EconomicDevelopmentImpactsOfHSR.pdf


13/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

1

more and produce smaller benefits than originally promised. Based on these optimistic assumptions, theauthority estimates that operational energy savings will repay the energy cost of building high-speed rail in 13 years, after which the rail line will save 11.75 trillion British thermal units (BTUs) per year.79 The rail line is alsoprojected to save 7.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, or about1.4 percent of the states projectedoutput in 2025.80 Even with these optimistic assumptions, high-speed rail reduces corridortransportation energy consumption by only 8.3 percent. This means the operational energy and

greenhouse gas savings fall to zero if we assumeinstead thatautomobiles and airplanes are, by 2025, jus8.3 percent more energy efficient than they are today.If automakers meet Obamas fuel-efficiencystandards, autos will be more than 30 percent more efficient in 2025 than they are today, so high-speed rail will actually be wasting energy.Auto trips are as energy efficient as rail tripsOToole, 09 - American public policy analyst; senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government PlanningHarms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future (Randal, The High Cost of High-Speed Rail, America Dream Coalition - Center for Econom

Freedom Texas Public Policy Foundation, 8/09,http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)//AYAs an analysis by the Department of Energy concluded, intercity auto trips tend to be relativelyefficient highway trips with higher-than-average vehicle occupancy rateson average, they are as

energy efficient as rail intercity trips. If we really wanted to save energy using mass transportationintercity buses use far less energy per passenger mile than passenger trains. Not only are autos asenergy efficient as Amtrak today, long-term trends favor autos and airlines over trains. Since 1975,airlines have cut the energy they use per passenger mile by more than half, while Amtraks energyefficiency has grown by just 25 percent (table 6). Automobile energy efficiencies grew rapidly whengas prices were high, more slowly when prices were low. But even when prices were low, automanufacturers improved the energy efficiencies of engines so that the number of ton-miles pergallon continued to increase. Both the airline industry and auto manufacturers expect their energyefficiencies to continue to increase. Boeing promises its 787 plane will be 20 percent more fuel efficient thacomparable planes today. Jet engine makers expect to double fuel efficiency by 2020. Automakers signed onto President Obamas 2016 fuel-efficiency targets. If they meet those targets, the average cars and light

trucks on the road in 2025 will be 30 percent more energy efficient than they are today, even if the fuel-efficiencies of new cars do not increase after 2016. If we really wanted to save energy using masstransportation, intercity buses use far less energy per passenger mile than passenger trains. Steven Polzin,of the University of South Floridas Center for Urban Transportation Research, points out that autos andbuses have relatively short life cycles, so they can readily adapt to the need to save energy or reducepollution. Rail systems may be far more difficult or expensive to upgrade to newer, more efficienttechnologies, Polzin adds. In other words,theAmerican auto fleet almost completely turns over every 18years, and the airline fleet turns over every 21 years, so both can quickly become more fuel-efficient. Butbuilders of rail linesare stuck with whatever technology they select for at least three to four decades. Thismeans that any energy comparisons of moderate- or high-speed rail with air or auto travel must comparerails with airline or auto efficiencies in 15 to 20 years, not those today.

Growing efficiencies in aircraft and cars can solve for energyOtoole, 09 - American public policy analyst; senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government PlanningHarms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future (Randal, The High Cost of High-Speed Rail, America Dream Coalition - Center for Econom

Freedom Texas Public Policy Foundation, 8/09,http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)//AY

As a Department of Energy report concluded in 2000, intercity auto trips tend to be relativelyefficient highway trips with higher than-average vehicle occupancy rateson average, they are asenergy-efficient as rail intercity trips. Moreover, the report added, if passenger rail competes formodal share by moving to high-speed service, its energy efficiency should be reduced somewhat
http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AYhttp://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AYhttp://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AYhttp://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AYhttp://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AYhttp://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AYhttp://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AYhttp://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AY


14/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

1

making overall energy savings even more problematic. This explains why the Florida High SpeedRail Authoritys analysis of a Tampa-Orlando rail line concluded that the environmentally preferrealternative is the No-Build Alternative because it would result in less direct and in direct impact tothe environment. An objective analysis of other high-speed rail proposals would reach the sameconclusion. Not all analyses agree with this assessment. The FRAs high-speed rail plan claims that its trainwould reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 6 billion pounds (2.7 million metric tons) per year. This

was based on an analysis by the Center for Clean Air Policy that assumed that: Auto fuel prices wouldremain low, leading cars in 2025 to be only a little more energy-efficient than today. Considering recentspikes in fuel prices and Obamas new fuel-economy standards, the average car on the road in 2025 is likelyto be considerably more fuel-efficient than today. The average automobile on the road carries 1.6 people. Apreviously noted, occupancies for intercity travel are closer to 2.4. Airline energy efficiencies wouldgrow by 0.6 percent per year. In fact, airline energy efficiencies have grown by 3.2 percent per yearsince 1970. Considering new technologies now in development, there is every reason to believe thataircraft energy efficiencies will grow much faster than 0.6 percent per year. The average high-speedtrain in every corridor would operate at 70 percent of passenger capacity. Yet, in 2008,the average

Amtrak train operated at only 51 percent of capacity; Amtraks moderate-speed trains in the BostonWashington, Los AngelesSan Diego, and Philadelphia Harrisburg corridors all operated at 34 to 48percent of capacity. These are examples of what Danish planning professor Bent Flyvbjerg callsoptimism bias. Such bias, says Flyvbjerg, explains why large public works projects almostinevitably cost more and produce smaller benefits than originally promised. In addition, nearly 1billion pounds of the projected annual reduction of CO2 were from the Boston-to-WashingtonCorridor, which is not part of the FRA plan.


15/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

1

Induced Demand

HSR wont significantly reduce auto trips reduced congestion will lead to induced demand or other

trips that offset any reduction

United States Government Accountability Office, 09 the audit, evaluation, and investigation arm of the United States Congress(High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role, Report toCongressional Requesters, March 2009, p. 19, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf?source=ra) // SPThe effect on highway congestion of diverting automobile travelers to high speed rail will vary based on the specific locations and times. For example, if high

speed rail can divert travelers from making an intercity trip through a congested highway at peak times, then it may have a noticeable effect on traffic. Overthe long term, however, whatever trips are diverted on a congested corridor to another mode of travel arelikely to be at least partially replaced by other trips, since the reduced congestion from diversion makes iteasier to travela phenomenon known as induced demand. Nonetheless, given the great number of trips by car, the diversionof a small percentage of automobile travelers to high speed rail could have a significant impact on the number of high speed rail riders, and result in benefitsarising from increased capacity in the transportation system and thus more trips being carried. For example, in Japan, a survey on a recently developed high

speed rail line showed that 21 percent of riders on a new high speed rail line diverted from the automobile mode. Similarly, in studies conducted forCalifornias proposed statewide high speed rail system, over 40 percent of forecasted riders are projectedto be diverted from automobile travelers, but the high speed rail line will only reduce automobile travel by

an estimated 7 percent.


16/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

1

***AT Solvency***


17/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

1

Other Countries Not Analogous

Other countries HSR systems are not analogous auto travel is significantly more expensive in place

like Japan

United States Government Accountability Office, 09 the audit, evaluation, and investigation arm of the United States Congress(High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role, Report toCongressional Requesters, March 2009, p. 20, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf?source=ra) // SP

In the countries we visited, automobile travel also tends to be significantly more expensive than in theUnited States, resulting from tolls on intercity roads and higher gas prices and taxes, which makes highspeed rail a more cost-competitive option.20 For example, according to Japanese government officials, todrive between Tokyo and Osakaa distance of approximately 318 miles by automobilecan cost almost$200 each way, including over $90 in tolls, and between $70 and $105 in fuel costs, depending on the fueleconomy of the vehicle (in August 2008, the average price of gasoline in Japan was $6.50 per gallon).21 This cost compares with a high speed rail faof about $130 per passenger. By comparison, to travel one-way between Los Angeles and San Francisco byautomobile, a distance of 432 miles, will require a $4 toll to cross the Bay Bridge, and roughly $25 to $40 ifuel costs (on Jan. 27, 2009, the average price of gasoline in California was $2.10 per gallon, although at gas prices over $4 per gallon, at which they wererecently, fuel costs could be over $80 and could rise over the long term). This cost compares with an average air fare of about $108, and the California High SpeRail Authority is anticipating a high speed rail fare of about half the air fare, or about $60 in this example

U.S. cannot extrapolate from the adoption of HSR in other countries regions were more densely

populated and rails were already overcrowdedPeterman, Frittelli, and Mallett 09Analyst in Transportation Policy, Specialists in Transportation Policy, from the Congressional ResearchService- prepares information for members and committees of Congress (High Speed Rail (HSR) in the United States CRS Re port for Congress, December 8 200p. 6, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40973.pdf) // SP

Proponents of HSR often cite the networks in these countries, with the implication that their adoption ofHSR makes the feasibility and desirability of building HSR lines in the United States unquestionable. But toextrapolate from the adoption of HSR in other countries to the conclusion that the United States shouldfollow a similar path may not be warranted. The motives that led other countries to implement very high

speed rail lines are varied; some, like Japan and China, did so originally in part to meet the demand onalready overcrowded conventional rail lines, while others did so in part to try to preserve rails decliningmode share in the face of the growing role of car and air travel. In most cases, the regions served were mordensely populated than most areas in the United States.

Other countries HSR systems are not analogous they have higher population densities, smaller land

areas, lower levels of car ownership, higher gas pricesPeterman, Frittelli, and Mallett 09Analyst in Transportation Policy, Specialists in Transportation Policy, from the Congressional ResearchService- prepares information for members and committees of Congress (High Speed Rail (HSR) in the United States CRS Report for Congress, December 8 200p. 7, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40973.pdf) // SPThe relative efficiency of HSR as a transportation investment varies among countries, as its level of usage is likely to depend on the interplay of many factors,

including geography, economics, and government policies. For example, compared to the United States, countries with HSR have

higher population densities, smaller land areas, lower per capita levels of car ownership, higher gas priceslower levels of car use (measured both by number of trips per day and average distance per trip), and higher levels of publictransportation availability and use. Also, there is a significant difference in the structure of the rail industryin these countries compared to the United States. In virtually all of those countries, high speed rail wasimplemented and is operated by state-owned rail companies that operate over a state-owned rail networka network on which passenger rail service was far more prominent than freight service even before theintroduction of high speed rail. By contrast, in the United States the rail network is almost entirely privatelowned, and freight service is far more prominent than is passenger service. Yet even with the introduction of HSR, and witother factors that are more conducive to intercity passenger rail use than in the United States, in most of these countries intercity rail travel (including bothconventional and high speed rail) represents less than 10% of all passenger miles traveled on land.18


18/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

1

U.S. and Europe and too different for HSR to be successfully replicatedMcKendrick, 10- independent analyst who tracks the impact of information technology on management and markets. He is the author of the SOAManifesto and has written for Forbes, ZDNet and Database Trends & Applications (Joe, High-Speed Rail Helps the European economy; Can it Help the US?,

smartplanet.com, 3/10/10,http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/business-brains/high-speed-rail-helps-european-economy-can-it-help-the-us/5423)//AYHowever, the impressive impact of high-speed rail across the European continent may not be seen as widely

across North America. For one, the residents of European nations have always been more closely tied to theirrail systems as primary transportation networks. In the US, the Amtrak system has been a bare-bones systeconnecting major hubs, butrarely seen outside the Northeast corridor as a significant mode of transportation. Europeacities are denser and more centralized than North American cities, and therefore more in reach of trainstations. Over the past 50 years, North American urban areas have decentralized to the point where residents are scattered acrossareas up to a hundred miles in distance from urban or suburban cores.

Europe and Japan are not analogous land uses are denser, cities are closer together, and regulated

transportation sectors were less competitiveLevinson et al 1997(David, Fellow at the Institute of Transportation Studies, The full cost of high-speed rail: an engineering approach,http://128.101.119.3/Courses/Cases/CE5212/F2009/CS2/cba.pdf, LCS)

It is doubtful that without considerable subsidy high-speed rail could be constructed, much lessprofitablein California. These subsidies are anticipated to be higher than those required in other countries. Theconditions in Europe and Japan during the early stages of high-speed rail are significantly differentthan most parts of the United States. Land uses are denser and cities are closer together.Furthermore,constraints on federal spending in the 1990s hinder the development of new infrastructure.A last key distinction is that the regulatedtransportation sectors in Japan and Europe prevented competition from air travel to the samedegree as in the United States when the HSR lines were planned and deployed. Had air travel beenderegulated and privatized at the time, the decision to proceed with high-speed rail, particularly inEurope, may have been different. As an illustration of this, Southwest Airlines is a major opponent of high-speed rail in Texas (Krumm 1994). Aswith all rail modes, there is a significant amount of inflexibility associated with the system design. The high-speed networks are limited, anthe rails require very specific vehicles. Compared with the greater flexibility afforded the untracked

air travel system or the ubiquitous highway system, high-speed rail faces serious difficulties. However,should such a system be built, it can be expected to increase the commuter sheds of both the San Francisco Bay area and Los Angeles to include Central Valley cities. A

one hour commute, while on the long end of acceptable, would now be much farther away through the use of local high-speed trains. On the other hand, totaltravel between the two metropoles would likely increase very little, since the time and cost savingsof even non-stop high-speed rail against the existing frequent air service from the three Bay areaand five Los Angeles airports are minimal.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/business-brains/high-speed-rail-helps-european-economy-can-it-help-the-us/5423)/AYhttp://www.smartplanet.com/blog/business-brains/high-speed-rail-helps-european-economy-can-it-help-the-us/5423)/AYhttp://www.smartplanet.com/blog/business-brains/high-speed-rail-helps-european-economy-can-it-help-the-us/5423)/AYhttp://www.smartplanet.com/blog/business-brains/high-speed-rail-helps-european-economy-can-it-help-the-us/5423)/AYhttp://128.101.119.3/Courses/Cases/CE5212/F2009/CS2/cba.pdfhttp://128.101.119.3/Courses/Cases/CE5212/F2009/CS2/cba.pdfhttp://128.101.119.3/Courses/Cases/CE5212/F2009/CS2/cba.pdfhttp://www.smartplanet.com/blog/business-brains/high-speed-rail-helps-european-economy-can-it-help-the-us/5423)/AYhttp://www.smartplanet.com/blog/business-brains/high-speed-rail-helps-european-economy-can-it-help-the-us/5423)/AY


19/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

1

HSR Indebted

Chinas HSR program is an empirical failureits heavily indebted and 70% of its projects have been

suspended

Moore 2/21, the Telegraph's Shanghai correspondent and business reporter, (Malcolm, China's high-speed rail project, the jewel of the country'stransport policy and one of the most impressive feats of engineering in the world, has run out of money and will be scaled back dramatically this year, theTelegraph, February 21, 2012,http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T14984084303&format=GNBFI&sort=BOEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T14984084307&cisb=22_T14984084306&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=389195&docNo=25)//AG

Out of 23 current railway projects, some 70 per cent have been suspended, partly suspended, or delayed, accordingto the Chinese state media. Meanwhile, an unnamed source told Dow Jones, the news agency, thatonly nine new railways would becommissioned this year, compared to 70 last year. Having run up enormous debts, the ChineseRailways ministry is struggling to persuade banks to continue to finance its ambitions. Ticketsales,meanwhile, have been slow on some lines as travellers baulk at the price. "The ministry cannot bear so much debt. Ithas alreadytaken 240 billion yuan (24 billion) of loans and if it takes much more how can it pay the interest?" said Wang Mengshu, amember of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and senior consultant on the high-speed rail project. "It can make profits of about 70

billion yuan on freight, but it is making no money on passenger travel.The government should cancel some of the deb

or invest some money itself rather than asking the banks to finance it," he added. "A lot of projects are half -finished and while nine new lines have been approvethis year, no one has started building them." By the end of this year, China's high-speed network is likely to stretch to over 6,000 miles, transporting hundreds ofmillions of passengers in spacious long-nosed bullet trains. The 819-mile journey from Beijing to Shanghai, more than twice the distance from London to

Edinburgh, now takes under five hours. At the height of the high-speed boom, trains were being fitted with toilets that cost 1.2million yuan (120,000) a piece, and taps imported from Japan thatcost 7,000 yuan, according to an investigation by Century Weeklymagazine. However, China's high-speed rail ambitions, which include tendering for the London to Birmingham high-speed link, took ablow last July when two trains collided, killing 40 and injuring almost 200 . A few months before the crash, China's Railwayminister, Liu Zhijun was removed from his postand now faces corruption charges. Zhang Shuguang, the deputy chiefengineer, who is also under investigation, reportedly paid 540,000 for a house in Los Angeles while on a monthly salary of a few hundred pounds. Questions weraised about how much of the 190 billion high-speed rail budget had been siphoned off, and whether it would have an impact on the safety of the network. In thwake of the crash, the Ministry found it increasingly expensive to borrow money, and no longer had access to the huge stimulus loans that were handed out in thwake of the financial crisis to keep the Chinese economy going.


20/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

2

Existing Transport Policies Undermine

Failure to terminate existing policies undermines HSRMK: Gilbert,; Perl, 2010 (Richard Anthony. Transport Revolutions : Moving People and Freight Without Oil. New York, NY, USA: New SocietyPublishers,. p 239. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/umich/Doc?id=10397417&ppg=239 Copyright 2010. New Society Publishers. All rights reserved.)Existing aviation and road development policies and programs that are not compatible with a shift awayfrom oil-powered transport will have to be terminated, as will policies and programs that supportassociated land uses. The skill and effort needed to remove existing policies and dismantle established programs is far from trivial. Lack of afocus on policy termination has undermined many efforts by leaders across the spectrum of politicalorientation to change the direction of US policy. These efforts include, for example, the Carter administrations agenda of governmenleadership in energy conservation of the late 1970s and the Reagan administrations goal of replacing Social Security pensions with private alternatives in the

1980s. Failures to terminate existing policies have undermined the key priorities of more than these twopresidents. One analyst noted that the political dynamics of terminating established public policies differ fundamentally from those involved in creating newpolicies because distinctive coalitions generally form on both sides [and] termination contests are usually more bitter and harder to win than most policyadoption contests.25

Continued spending on airports and roads empirically undermines transit funding

MK: Gilbert,; Perl, 2010 (Richard Anthony. Transport Revolutions : Moving People and Freight Without Oil. New York, NY, USA: New SocietyPublishers,. p 239. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/umich/Doc?id=10397417&ppg=239 Copyright 2010. New Society Publishers. All rights reserved.)Many of the previous efforts in the US to cultivate energy-efficient alternatives including local public transport acrossthe and intercity rail passenger improvements have been undermined by simultaneous additions to to change roadand airport capacity, usually paid for with earmarked trust funds from fuel and other taxes. Such anapproach to transport development, which some portray as balanced spending, is analogous to applying acars accelerator and brake at the same time. The result undermines the performance of both systems andeventually destroys the engine. The onset of the next transport revolutions should be most noticeable for what stops happening, namely theexpansion of highways and airports. A scan of the US federal budget suggests the magnitude of resources that could then become available following suchredeployment.


21/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

2

Lack Personnel

Lack of railway personnel to manage the system prevents solvencyU.S Department of Transportation April 2009 (http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf )(International datafrom: GAO report, High-Speed Passenger Rail (GAO-09-317); UIC High-Speed Department, High-Speed Lines in the Worldwww.uic.asso.fr/uic/spip.php?article573; and Janes World Railways 2007-2008. International ridership data is from 2007, except for Germany and U.K., whichare from 2005. Amtrak data from FY 2008; represents both NEC Regional (predecessor service began in 1969) and Acela services. Train { grande vitesse orhigh-speed train.21

Lack of Expertise and Resources. The relatively small investment in passenger rail in recent decades and growingretirements of personnel throughout the rail sector have resulted in a shrinking pool of experts in the field,including engineers skilled in signal, track, and rolling stock design, along with experienced rail plannersand managers. A renewed investment program will eventually bring more expertise back into the industrybut that process is likely to lag behind the need to plan, implement and manage a major new program. Moreover, the Federal and State agenciesresponsible for administering this effort will need to aggressively build capacity to manage their newportfolios; and the freight railroads and Amtrak will need to identify resources to support the new effortwithout diverting from their core operating and maintenance responsibilities.


22/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

2

No Ridership

HSR would only divert a small number of passengers at best nonpartisan study provesNCPA 10(the National Center for Policy Analysis is a conservative think tank. Calif. Rail Project Is High-Speed Porkhttp://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20001 Nov 4 2010) CANOVA

High-speed trains connecting major cities are a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as arespectable social cause. In reality, they would further burden already overburdened governments and drain dollars from worthier programs, saysRobert Samuelson. Let's suppose that the Obama administration gets its wish to build high-speed rail systems in 13 urban corridors. The administration hasalready committed $10.5 billion, and that's just a token down payment. California wants about $19 billion for an 800-mile track from Anaheim to San Francisco.Constructing all 13 corridors could easily approach $200 billion. Most (or all) of that would have to come from government at some level. What would we get forthis huge investment? Not much. Here's what we wouldn't get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air travel, oil

consumption or imports, says Samuelson. High-speed intercity trains (not commuter lines) travel at up to 250 miles perhour and are most competitive with planes and cars over distances of fewer than 500 miles. In areport onhigh-speed rail, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 miles orfewer with the most daily air traffic in 2007. Los Angeles to San Francisco led the list with 13,838passengers; altogether, daily air passengers in these 12 corridors totaled 52,934. If all of them switched totrains, the total number of daily airline passengers (about 2 million) would drop only 2.5 percent, and any

fuel savings would be less than that.High-speed rail would subsidize a tiny group of travelers and do littleelse. With governments everywhere pressed for funds, how can anyone justify a program whose main effect will simply be to make matters worse?

Only a small elite will use HSROToole 10(senior fellow at the Cato Institute High-Speed Rail http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/high-speed-rail June 2012)CANOVAThus, the costs of a true high-speed rail system would be far higher than the costs of a medium-speed system on existing tracks, as envisioned by the Obama

administration. To build a 12,800-mile system of high-speed trains would cost close to $1 trillion, based on the costs estimates of the California system.12 It isunlikely that the nation could afford such a vast expense, particularly since our state and federal governments are already in huge fiscal trouble. Also, considerhow the costs would rise even higher once a new rail system gets underway. The 12,800-mile FRA network reaches only 42 states and only a handful of cities inthose states. Every excluded state and city is represented by senators and representatives who will wonder why their constituents have to pay for a rail systemthat only serves other areas. And even in the 42 states in the plan, routes are discontinuous, with no high-speed links between many pairs of major cities such asNew York and Chicago. Groups representing all the excluded routes would lobby for rail lines, and overall costs would balloon over time. And the costs mentioneare only the capital costs. Most high-speed rail lines wouldn't cover their operating costs, so there would have to be billions of dollars in ongoing subsidies to the

system. If the ridership on an expensive new rail system was very large, the high costs would seem morereasonable. But, unlike the interstate highway system, which is heavily used by almost all Americans, only a small elite would use high-speed rail. In 2007, the average American traveled 4,000 miles and shipped 2,000 ton-miles of freight over the interstate highways.13 By comparison, totaannual use of a high-speed rail system would not likely be much more than 100 miles per person. Andconsidering the premium fares charged to ride high-speed rail, most users would likely be higher-incomewhite-collar workers.

No one will use high speed railOToole, 09- American public policy analyst; senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of TheBest-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your

Future (Randal, The High Cost of High-Speed Rail, America Dream Coalition - Center for Economic

Freedom Texas Public Policy Foundation, 8/09,

http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)//AYHigh-speed rail plans in other parts of the country propose similar fare premiums. Midwest train fares wilbe competitive with air travel, says the Midwest High Speed Rail Initiative.Average fares are estimatedto be up to 50 percent higher than current Amtrak fares to reflect improved services. Few peoplewho pay their own way will spend an extra $79 to save an hour and 25 minutes of their time. Butanyone who values their time that highly would be willing to pay an extra $20 to save an hour by
http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AYhttp://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)/AY


23/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

2

taking the plane. Rail advocates respond that highspeed trains have an advantage over flying when addingthe time it takes to get between downtowns and airports. Yet less than 8 percent of Americans workdowntown. Who are they? Bankers, lawyers, and bureaucratshigh-income people who hardly needtaxpayer-supported transportation. (Security screening also adds to flying time, but if any American high-speed train suffers an incident similar to the March 2004 attacks on trains in Spain, the TransportationSecurity Administration will probably require screening for high-speed trains as well as airplanes.) A tinybut growing number of people also live in many downtown areas, but these too tend to be wealthy ohigh-income people able to afford downtown property prices. In short, not only will most taxpayershave to subsidize the rides of the few who take high-speed rail, those subsidies will tend to go mainly topeople who are already well off and have plenty of other mobility choices.Even a national high speed rail system wont have enough usersOToole, 09 - American public policy analyst; senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government PlanningHarms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future (Randal, The High Cost of High-Speed Rail, America Dream Coalition - Center for Econom

Freedom Texas Public Policy Foundation, 8/09,http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/transit/HSRinTX.pdf)//AYThe interstates also carry half of all heavy truck traffic, which means they move about 16 percent of allfreight shipped in the United States. In 2007, the average American traveled 4,000 miles and shipped 2,000

ton-miles of freight over the interstates. One reason why the interstates are so heavily used is that they goso many places. As of 2007, interstates directly served all 50 states and more than 330 of the nations 440urban areas of more than 50,000 peoplenot to mention thousands of smaller cities and towns. This meanthatwell over two out of three Americans live and work within a few minutes drive of an interstatefreeway. In contrast, when combined with the existing Boston-to-Washington corridor, the FRA highspeed rail plan would reach only 33 states. Trains would stop in only 65 of the nations 100 largesturban areas. For most people in smaller urban areas and towns, the only access to high-speed trainwould be by driving to a major city. Even many people in urban areas served by high-speed railwould be closer to airports than downtown rail stations. As a result, high-speed rail lines wouldmove a relatively insignificant amount of passenger travel. A recent report compiling all of the oftenoptimistic projections of high-speed rail ridership estimated that the FRA highspeed rail lines woul

carry 20.6 billion passenger miles of travel in 2025less than 2 percent of what the interstatescarried in 2007. The average American would travel on the FRA system less than 60 miles a year. Ifthe average trip is 225 miles long, the average American would take a round-trip on the FRA systemonly about every eight years. Since California would have very-high-speed trains, Californians would ridehigh speed rail more than the rest of the country, but still less than 300 miles per person per year. Theselow numbers are confirmed by data from France and Japan, the two nations that have invested themost in high-speed rail. Though popular with American tourists, the average residents of France anJapan ride the TGVs (train grande vitesse) and bullet trains less than 400 miles per year. Given thegreater geographic expanse and lower population densities of the United States, it seems unlikely that thenation as a whole would ever approach that level of per-capita ridership. Table 1 shows that, when thecapital costs are amortized over 30 years at 7 percent interest, interstates are about 10 times more

costeffective than high-speed rail. The difference is even starker when it is recognized that user pay for theinterstates while general taxpayers would pay for the rail lines.


24/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

2

Perl/Gilbert Takeout

Perl/Gilbert say plan would require a new agency, termination of existing transport programs, and a

tax on oil products for roads

MK: Gilbert,; Perl, 2010 (Richard Anthony. Transport Revolutions : Moving People and Freight Without Oil. New York, NY, USA: New SocietyPublishers,. p 239. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/umich/Doc?id=10397417&ppg=239 Copyright 2010. New Society Publishers. All rights reserved.)Launching transport revolutions in the US could require three elements to steer change away from chaos and conflict. First would beestablishment of an agency that can develop a detailed plan and ensure its effective implementation througfinancial arrangements that encourage state and local governments and the private sector to embraceredesign efforts. Second would be termination of existing programs and plans for expanding airport andhighway capacity for oil-fueled mobility, and redirection of human and financial resources towarddeveloping electric traction capabilities.Third would be a new tax on oil products used for road transport,enough initially to raise the national average pump price by about 13 cents per litre (50 cents per gallon). This tax would also be applied to fuefor domestic aviation. Future tax increases would be needed to fully fund the redesign of Americastransport infrastructure. These could be gauged subsequently, once the costs and economic impacts of Americas energy transition became apparen

The proceeds would be used in part to induce individuals and businesses to retire what could soon bestranded assets. These would include jet aircraft and motor vehicles that can be fueled only by petroleumproducts. The proceeds ofthe tax would also be used to stimulate private, state and local investment in electrictraction infrastructure in much the way that fuel and airline ticket taxes are used now for expandingaviation and road infrastructure.

States will not implement HSR Republican governors returned the federal stimulus money and

others fiscally-strapped state governments are likely to do the sameOrski 10, public policy consultant and former principal of the Urban Mobility Corporation, (Ken, Update: The Federal High-Speed Rail Program: A Post-Election Reality Check, Infrastructure USA, November 10, 2010, http://www.infrastructureusa.org/the-federal-high-speed-rail-program-a-post-election-realitycheck/)//AG

Samuelsons blunt verdict is likely to resonate strongly in the deficit-conscious next Congress and amongfiscally-strapped state governments. Recent events bear this out. Two newly elected Republican governors,Scott Walker in Wisconsin and John Kasich in Ohio, hadvowed to voters that they would kill the high-speedrail projects in their respective states and both of them rode on that pledge into office. Soon after the election, the $810 million HSR project inWisconsin was suspended by order ofthe outgoing Gov. Jim Doyle. Subsequently, Doyle announced he will leave the future of theproject to his Republican successor. The governor-elect confirmed that his position remains unchanged. I believe it is a grave mistake for the federal governmento insist on building an unwanted passenger rail system at a time when our roads and bridges are literally crumbling, Walker wrote to U.S. TransportationSecretary Ray LaHood. The governor-elect was responding to the Secretary who had warned that the HSR grant money could not be spent on other projects.

Walker is expected to receive full backing from his solidly Republican state legislature. Meanwhile, in Ohio, Gov.-electKasich, who received a similar letter from Secretary LaHood, declared that the proposed $450 million high-speed raline connecting Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati, is dead. He urged outgoing Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland to immediately canceall passenger rail contracts to save taxpayer money. Kasich, too, is expected to receive full support from his all-Republican state legislature. TheFlorida HSR Project Under a Cloud of Uncertainty As for Florida s Orlando-to-Tampa HSR project, its future has fallen under acloud of uncertainty, in the words of U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D -FL). The project received a setback when voters inHilsborough County rejected a proposal to build a light rail system that would have served as a collection/distribution system fpassengers using a planned high-speed rail station in downtown Tampa. This has led Rep. John Mica (R-FL), the presumptive chairman of the HouseTransportation and Infrastructure Committeee in the 112th Congress, to question the economic viability of the Tampa-Lakeland portion of throute and suggesta possibility ofbuilding the $2.6 billion high-speed line incrementally, with service between OrlandoInternational Airport and Walt Disney World as the first operable segment.


25/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

2

***Counterplans***


26/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

2

States CP Solvency

States can create HSR through multistate agreements or other instruments

U.S Department of Transportation April 2009 (http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf )(International datafrom: GAO report, High-Speed Passenger Rail (GAO-09-317); UIC High-Speed Department, High-Speed Lines in the Worldwww.uic.asso.fr/uic/spip.php?article573; and Janes World Railways 2007-2008. International ridership data is from 2007, except for Germany and U.K., whichare from 2005. Amtrak data from FY 2008; represents both NEC Regional (predecessor service began in 1969) and Acela services. Train { grande vitesse orhigh-speed train.26

Multi-State Partnerships. Most intercity passenger rail corridors, including designated high-speed rail corridors, cross State boundaries. Viable HSRcorridor strategies will, therefore, require a multi-State partnership in many cases. To successfully plan, fund, build anoperate these corridors, the States involved will need to act in a coordinated fashion, through an interstate compacta multi-State agreement, or other instrument. Any such multi-State understanding will require the backingof several political and administrative entities within each State.

States should take the lead in HSR developmentthey are the most efficient managersChicago Tribune 01(Editorial, Let states drive high-speed train, Dec 24, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-12-24/news/0112240192_1_high-speed-rail-investment-high-speed-train-high-speed-rail)Amtrak--the money-losing operation that poses as a national passenger railroad in the U.S.--is taking the lead in the development of a high-speed train network in thMidwest, comparable to the European trains that zoom by at more than 150 m.p.h. High-speed rail service in the Midwest is an interesting prospect--the market, as

well as environmental, energy conservation and other concerns, may justify it. Butputting Amtrak in charge and expectingthe feds to pay for most of it certainly is a recipe for waste and bad planning. For the Midwest, atleast, a frequent, comfortable and reliable high-speed rail system would be a new concept. Itought to be designedand operated as such, according to market

demand, with a rigorous bottom-line approach. In other words, everything Amtrak is not. According to plans being circulatedCongress and promoted by several local groups, Chicago would be the hub of a series of high-speed rail lines zipping out to Minneapolis-St. Paul, Detroit, Cincinnati, SLouis, Cleveland and other major urban areas, with stops at some smaller cities like Springfield, Ill., and Madison, Wis. New trains would run on upgraded freight traat estimated speeds of 110 m.p.h. The initial phase would be funded by approximately $4 billion, the Midwest's share of the $12 billion High Speed Rail Investmentinitiative, under consideration by Congress. Individual states have pledged smaller amounts to the effort, including Illinois' $50 million. A reverse logic animates thisproject: Instead of determining there is urgent demand--and then seeking funding--Midwestern supporters seem to be saying, "The pot of money is there, so we mighas well get our share." That's not the way to build a new railroad, but to extendAmtrakdomain which, torn by the incompatible demands of politics, public servi

and profitability, has evolved into anything but an efficient train system.States ought to take the lead in the high-spee

rail effort, and contribute a substantial amount of the money. Perhaps the federal government could pay for

the start-up infrastructure improvements, as it did to build the original interstate highway system in the 1950s. Thenan independent multi-

state agency could purchase the trains and turn over operations to a private concern.

Such high stakes andstrong participation by the states would lead to a far tougheranalysis of what service is needed than the pinata-style planning at play here. Built modestly anincrementally, high-speed rail could work and even make money, at which time full privatization would be the next step. A Chicago-to-St. Louis line, running onrelatively underutilized freight tracks through Normal and Springfield, could be a key test. Run efficiently, it could compete favorablywith airlines on speed of

downtown-to-downtown service, and certainly on roominess and comfort. Regional high-speed service has caught on in California and in the Northwest, and it maywell do so here. Although Amtrak's math is complicated, the agency projects that, when fully operational, its high-speed Acela line on the Northeast will make about

$180 million in annual profit Are there enough commuters and are they willing to give up their cars or airline seats in favor of high-speed trains? If it's their

own money on the line, state officials, planners--and taxpayers--would make sure the project makes sense before any money is investeHigh-speed train service in the Midwest is a prospect worth investigating, on the right terms.

Multistate pacts solve for HSR already being usedOPA 03 (Office of Public Affairs, US Department of Transportation, Fact Sheet, The Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act of 2003,http://www.dot.gov/affairs/Passenger%20Rail%20Fact%20Sheet.htm)


27/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

2

* The Administration believes thatstates, not Amtrak, are best equipped to decide where rail service is important.

States should be empowered to choose the rail service provider of their choice, whether it's Amtrak, a privatecompany or a public transit agency. Following a transition, the Administration's proposal would allow states to submit proposals for passenger railcapital investment to the U.S. Department of Transportation, as they have successfully done for highway and transit capital investments. * Amtrakwould transition into three companies: * A private passenger rail company that would operate trains under contract to states and multi-state compac- just as the current Amtrak operates trains under contract to commuter rail agencies; * A private rail infrastructure company that would maintain anoperate the infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor under contract to a multi-state Northeast Corridor Compact. Title to Amtrak's current tracks,

stations and other infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor will be held by the federal government and leased to the Northeast Corridor Compact; and* The National Passenger Rail Corporation, which would continue as a government corporation that would retain Amtrak's current right to use thetracks of the freight railroads, and the Amtrak corporate name. Both the track-access rights and the Amtrak brand would be provided under contractto states and multi-state compacts for qualifying passenger rail service they sponsor. * Separating train operations and infrastructure ownership is noa new concept. Train operations and infrastructure ownership have for decades been split in the United States. Amtrak operates trains over more tha22,000 miles of track in the United States, but owns only 730 miles of track (mostly on the Northeast Corridor between Washington, D.C. and Boston,

and in Michigan). All other tracks are owned either by freight railroads or by the states. * Multi-statecompacts are not new. Multi-state coalitions are already operating intercity rail services, andsome

areplanning for future high-speed rail operations . The Administration believes these cooperativ

partnershipsbetween the states, the federal government and freight railroads, will improve theefficiency ofintercity passenger rail service as a viable alternative to air and highway travelin somcorridors.

Federal Swift Act gives states the primary power to develop and operate HSRProk, 09legal analyst at Lexis Nexis, Chief Executive and General Counsel at FRONT RANGE ENERGY EFFICIENCY LLC ( Joshua, High Speed Rail: Planningand Financing the next Fifty Years of American Mobility 36 Transp. L. J.48)

The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994 (Swift Act) might well be considered the heart of federalregulation of high speed rail. In the Swift Act, Congress declared high speed rail to be an environmentallyadvantageous alternative to other intercity transportation, and acknowledged that federal funding would bnecessary to develop the technology necessary to make high speed rail a reality in the U.S.2 The purpose ofthe Act was "to encourage farsighted State, local, and private efforts in the analysis and planning for high-speed rail systems in appropriate intercity corridors." The Swift Act put the onus on "State and localgovernments" to develop the technology with federal planning support when necessary, and statesthat "new high-speed rail service should not receive Federal subsidies for operating andmaintenance expenses. The Secretary of Transportation delegated authority under the Swift Act asit related to high speed rail to the Federal Railroad Administrator. Congress, therefore, directed theStates to develop and operate high speed rail services with preliminary guidance from the FederalRailroad Administration(FRA). Accordingly, codified portions of the Swift Act provide "high-speed railassistance" for continued corridor development through "eligible activities," including: environmentalstudy, economic analysis, financial planning, and acquisitions. The assistance provides "matching funds notto exceed fifty percent of the costs of qualifying eligible activities. In terms of financing for fiscal years 20062013, the federal government makes $100,000,0009 available to State and local governments for corridor

development and technological improvements. The FRA publishes an annual "Notice of funding availabilitysolicitation for applications" for State and local governments to apply for high speed rail assistance.States have empirically been successful in enhancing passenger rail servicesPerl, 10Director of Urban Studies Program at Simon Fraser University (Anthony, Integrating HSR into North Americas Next Mobility Transition, June 12010, p. 9-10, http://wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter/publications/RCWP_Perl.pdf) // SPThe passenger rail analog to LCCs steady rise in air travel market share can be found in the efforts of some state governments to enhance Amtrak operationswithin, and even beyond, their borders to provide service innovations that draw more riders to the rails. Just as LCCs drew some travel from cars and busesthrough their enhanced value proposition, as well as inducing demand for trips that had previously been priced beyond discretionary travel budgets, statesponsored passenger rail enhancements sought to grow rail travel through a mix of modal shift and induced demand. A significant difference between the LCCbusiness model and the state-led passenger rail development initiatives was that airport terminals were usually better integrated into local road and transit

networks than were passenger rail stations. State-sponsored passenger rail service enhancements have occurred through


28/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

2

increased speeds (though still well below the global understanding of high-speed), increased frequencies,and enhanced connections with buses that bring service closer to travelers origins and destinations.Providing these local bus connections has usually proven easier than convincing local transit agencies toprovide greater access to intercity train stations. Table 2 presents recent ridership for these specializedstate services, which have on the whole grown faster than Amtraks overall ridership.

.Multi-state compacts already exist and can create dedicated fundingPuentes 10Senior Fellow with the Brookings Institutions Metropolitan Insfrastructure Initiative (Robert, Intermetropolitan Passenger Rail:Considerations for State Legislatures April 9th http://www.brookings.edu/research/speeches/2010/04/09-rail-transportation-puentes)The next point is thatif a particular corridor extends beyond individual state borders, close

coordinationboth formal and informalwith your neighbors is essential. More than jusbackroom deals, these are lengthy relationships that bear real fruit in the form offinalized plans, environmental reviews, and dedicated shared funding agreements . This

appeared to have been a significant advantage for those who received ARRA fundinganda hindrance for those who did not as, by design, several of the award-winning

corridors involved multi-state compacts. For example, the eight-state Midwest RegionaRail Initiative was established as far back as the mid-1990s. In consultation with the federagovernment, the states worked to develop a rail plan that was released in 1998 andupdated in 2004. Last summer, the eight governors, along with the mayor of Chicago, signea Memorandum of Understanding in anticipation of joint applications for ARRA funding thalaid out plans for collective high-speed railpriorities andplanning. Partly as a result, the projects in andaround the Chicago hub received nearly as much funding ($2.16 billion) as did California ($2.34 billion.)Similarly, the Virginia-North Carolina Interstate HighSpeed Rail Commission, created in 2001, agreed to recommend to its respective parent legislatures the enactment ofan interstate rail compact. Both state

legislatures passed lawsestablishing the Compactin 2004. The North CarolinaVirginia corridor received a total of $620 million spread among threeinvestments.


29/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

2

Privatization CP Solvency

Government guarantees and risk-mitigating measure significantly dampen the incentives for privates

to achieve efficiency gains

Tan 11- Assistant Professor at AKU-ISMC specialising in the political economy of development. Dr Tan completed his PhD in Economics at SOAS. Hepreviously taught development studies at SOAS and LSE, and worked on governance and human rights in Malaysia. His areas of interest includedevelopmental state theories, late industrialisation, poverty, privatisation, corruption and urban transport networks, (Jeff, InfrastructurePrivatisation: Oversold, Misunderstood and Inappropriate, Development Policy Review, January 1, 2011, EBSCO, CJD)

PPI is expected to deliver better results where commercial risks are shifted to the private sector (see Harris, 2003), but necessary (and expected)subsidiesmean that there are risk-incentive trade-offs as private incentives are reduced where the risk is

transferred back to the state(Heilman and Johnson, 1992; Daniels and Trebilcock, 2000). These risk-mitigating measuresdampen the incentives to private operators to achieve efficiency gains. Furthermore, wheregovernment subsidies finance the project, the government may be unwilling to let the project fail orto terminate concessions,given the essential nature of public services and the political

repercussions of interruptions in their provision. As risks have been largely borne by the public sector,there can be no clear designation of property rights as the owner cannot capture the whole socialand economic benefits generated nor would such a designation ensure efficiency and high levels ofinvestment (Fayard, 1999: 12-3). This means that the owners residual returns (profit) depend just asmuch on government decisions as on the owners residual control of the work process, andthis cansignificantly dilute private incentives to monitor in the absence of adequate institutionalarrangements and regulation in developing countries.


30/44

EHS DEBATE 10-11

3

Upgraded/Non-delegated Lines CP Solvency

Upgrading existing lines minimizes emissions from construction and solves better for warmingAlbalate 12, assistant professor of economics at the University of Barcelona, (Daniel, High -Speed Rail: Lessons for Policy Makers from ExperiencAbroad, Public Administration Review, April 2009, Political Science Complete)//AG

Clearly, the overall impact of HSTs on energy consumption is heavily dependent on the source of its traffic whether it is newly generated or attracted fropreviously existing modes (and, in the case of road transportation, whether it replaces cars or buses). However, HSR is not a particularly useftool for fighting carbon dioxide emissions, as it is less environmentally efficient than conventionamodern trains. Further, building a new and separate HST line involves significant carbon dioxidemissions that environmental HST analyses do not take into account(together with the environmental impact caused land take, noise, and visual disruption). In fact, Kageson concludes, after presenting evidence comparing the environmental impact of different transpmodes, that the reduction of carbon dioxide through HSR buildingis small and it may take decades forto compensate for the emissions caused by construction . . . Indeed, it will take too long fortraffi c toff set the emissions caused by building the line. Under these circumstances it may be better to upgradan existing line to accommodate for somewhat higher speeds as this would minimize emissions fromconstruction and cut emissions from train traffic compared to HSR (2009, 25).

Conventional fast trains are better than HSR reduce net emissions faster and cost significantly lessKageson 9, author of reports on pricing of transport and the director of Nature Associates in Stockholm (Per, The Future for Interurban PassengerTransport Bringing Citizens Closer Together, International Transport Research Symposium, November 2009,

http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Proceedings/Symp2009/5-Kageson.pdf)//AGThere is no cause to prohibit investment in high speed rail on environmental grounds so long as the carbon gains made in traffic balances the emissions causedduring construction. The rail sector, however, often claims that investment in rail infrastructure will bring large environmental benefits (Banverket, 2008, UNIF2008, UIC 2008). Independent research, on the other hand, concludes that these benefits are not so important (de Rus, 2008, W SP and KTH Jrnvgsgruppen,

2008, Nilsson and Pydokke, 2009). The results ofthis report support the latter view. Investment in high speed railcannotbe expected to contribute much to climate change mitigation. Investment in conventional fasttrains may in some circumstances be significantly more beneficial.It may be time for manyenvironmentaliststo reconsider their attitude to high speed rail. While in some cases calling for huge investment in

high speed rail neg 7wj

Documents